PUBLIC EDITOR NY TIMES DEFENDS STORIES SAYING IRAN SUPPLIES WEAPONS

I was surprised at the Public Editor's take on the series of stories by NY Times reporter Michael Gordon purporting to show how Iran was supplying and aiding Shiite militias in Iraq. Many readers wrote in to complain that the The New York Times was once again coming out with dubiously based stories that enable Bush/Cheney to foment another war in the Middle East. Clark Hoyt writes in today's NY Times:

"I don’t buy the view that The Times — in the words of a Crystal Gayle song of the ’70s — is headed down that wrong road again. I reviewed virtually everything the newspaper has published about Iran this year, and the record is a very good one. The Times has broken important stories on Iran’s nuclear program and on an internal debate within the administration over the option of military action, to name just two."

But wait. The stories by Michael Gordon present no evidence to back up the assertion that Iran is supplying arms and specially designed explosive penetrating devices to Shiite militias who are then using these arms to kill American soldiers. All we have in the Gordon stories is the accusation cast by U.S. military, following the Bush/Cheney line out of Washington, that Iran is involved.

Even Hoyt recognizes that the NY Times is not without responsibility for presenting hearsay and accusation without more. Writes Hoyt:

"But there are special lengths that The Times — or any other news organization — must go to when dealing with an issue so protracted, so complicated, and so politicized. It must take pains when reporting today’s events to add yesterday’s perspective. It must attribute information exhaustively to keep sources’ credibility and motives in view. And it must be willing to revisit old ground when new developments change the context.


"The recent article demonstrates some of the pitfalls. I think it had avoidable problems that helped lead to the eruption of criticism, a view vehemently disputed by Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, and Michael Gordon, who wrote the piece.

"Readers said that, at a time of growing tensions between the United States and Iran, the article failed to offer persuasive evidence that Iran was the source of the bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, E.F.P.’s, which can go through the armor of Humvees.

"In fact, strong evidence was provided in a 2,600-word article by Gordon and Scott Shane, published March 27, and Gordon said, “I do sort of assume that readers will have some familiarity with the body of our coverage over the past few months.” I don’t think that’s a reasonable assumption, and I believe The Times could have found a way to remind skeptics of the essentials in the March article without repeating it in its entirety."

It is in this last paragraph that Clark Hoyt goes off the deep end. What evidence in the story of March 27? And why was it "strong?" All it was was descriptions of explosive devices with serial numbers claimed by the U.S. government to have come from Iran. But those accusations don't make it so.

Why do the serial numbers prove the devices originated from Iran? Such weapons are made and manufactured all over the world, even in basements and garages in Iraq. These serial numbers are garbage if presented as "evidence." Second, how does the U.S. know the government of Iran supplied them? Suppose they were supplied by cousin Ralphie or Mohammad from some little town across the border in Iran. Does this make Iran itself complicit?

These are the type of questions that Michael Gordon and his stories in the NY Times never address, much less answer. All Gordon does is take the word of the U.S. generals who take their orders from Bush and Cheney. I thought a news reporter was to supposed to investigate sources and obtain corroboration on all the facts alleged in his/her story.

These are the areas Clark Hoyt as Public Editor should pursue. Instead of claiming that the story by Michael Gordon on March 27 presented "strong evidence," he should insist that reporters at the NY Times get off their rears and do the required leg work before their editors print such stories in the NY Times.